Donald Trump

*sry*

Isn´t it possible to delete a post ? I was quoting myself instead of editing by mistake.

"

Xavderion wrote:

The master of free publicity did it again, the absolute madman.

Exclamation mark :-)

Sure, I hear "Schlong" all the time when I listen to CNN, BBC or AlJazeera(engl.) and in political debates in general. All the time !!! That man is pure satirical reality. Unfortunately he has real supporters.


When I saw this, I thought that I would risk everything to get away from there(this is absolutely not funny):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHHpNjRgpo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s48cvKvlFAk

(these people are brutal criminals, not religious, had to think of them as a "dark brotherhood")

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The definition of fascism must adequately describe fascism or it is worthless. Wikipedia is in general.a good resource, but when a topic becomes too heated the wiki lacks any semblance of neutrality. This will akways be true due to the nature of the wiki itself. Wiki may be referenced, but it lacks the real autbority of scholarship.

Fascism is a controversial term (see how many definitions). The list is balanced, it has perspectives from the right and left, and actual fascists. It's pretty neutral.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I don't think fascism is currently part of any major left wing ideaology. My point was the origins of it.

As.for.being more of a right wing vs left wing thing - part of that will.depend.on. how those are defined. In some countries and states the.particulars.of what people are for or against vary. While any party with too.much power.will.try to control the populace, the idea that the human race/environment/planet will be improved by controlling every one is specific to those who place absolute faith in the current state of science. The opposing side may still want to control people, but tbat is due to wanting to maintain what already is. The economics of tbe state being best suited for almost all.economic control is almost entirely a thing of the progressiveideaology. There are definitely some things that need state operation for long term viability, but socialism, fascism and progressive economies take it far further than consevatives would.

If you have read the article, you should know that Mussolini started as a socialist and created his movement because he diverged from socialists, then took support from the far right and conservatives. The left elements are fairly minimal in that story. Fascists have always used the right for their purposes. The right wing definitions I use are the current ones that apply to US, for this example, you must differentiate social and economical elements.

Reality is that while many conservatives talk about free markets they will end being corporatists. There are not a lot of exceptions. The whole excessive control of the economy is not a left or right thing, the only difference is rhetorical (the left will admit to control, be total to the point of flaw like communism, or partial like in mixed economies, while the right pretends to not do it, and they are hypocritical corporatists most of the time; see Scrotie's frustration with conservatives, he is an actual, principled rightwinger economically, and I can respect that even if I disagree). Free markets are an abstraction, you can't avoid regulations.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Overall thie.placing of fascism as left wing is a case of squares amd rectangles. Fascism is the square, a particular case of the left wing rectangle.
Not all rectangles are square, and very few if any current left wing groups are fascist.

...

I will agree with you on anything being conpletely right or.left. I think one of the big problems we face in finding solutions is the
tendancy to label.everything and everyone, and then automatically disagree with those who don't share the same.label.we wear.

No, it's not. The only thing you could say is left wing (in a bastardized sense) is the interventionism. Socially they are as right wing as possible. Mussolini went from the socialists to the far right for very good reasons. Economy is not all that matters with the left and right.

For the sake's of accuracy and neutrality, Fascists can't be properly cathegorized in left and right, but if you wanted to classify them, it would be mostly right except in economy. The nationalism, hate for the weak/other, anti intelectuallism and more, are just socially far right things.

You are being disingenuous saying that fascists are a subset of the left when they started from fundamental disagreements with them because they were almost right wingers without any love for free markets. The left have enough monsters on their ranks (see almost any communist/statist regimen), fascists are not part of that group by almost any measure.

You should define right wing and left wing, like in this article, to avoid further disagreements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

You are narrowly looking at economic aspects and ignoring the social aspects, and that's it. I can't accept your interpretation of history if you don't fix that.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Reality is that while many conservatives talk about free markets they will end being corporatists. There are not a lot of exceptions. The whole excessive control of the economy is not a left or right thing, the only difference is rhetorical (the left will admit to control, be total to the point of flaw like communism, or partial like in mixed economies, while the right pretends to not do it, and they are hypocritical corporatists most of the time; see Scrotie's frustration with conservatives, he is an actual, principled rightwinger economically, and I can respect that even if I disagree). Free markets are an abstraction, you can't avoid regulations.

[snip]

Fascists can't be properly cathegorized in left and right, but if you wanted to classify them, it would be mostly right except in economy.

Well someone understands me.

Also, I am hesitant to categorize any politician whatsoever as rightwing in economy. In rhetoric only, perhaps, but in practice it's a whole different story; strangely, I feel you're holding the fascists to a double standard here. I wouldn't even call the "rhetoricians" corporatists, it makes it sound like they're trying to help out corporations in general, when a far more apt term would be flat-out corrupt; their aim is to scratch the backs of those who scratch theirs. The most economically-rightwing PotUS we've had in the last 30 years has been Bill Clinton, which is indicative of a deep failure on the part of the Republicans.

Yeah, corruptions tends to mess up things, but being said, Fascists were corporatists. Their idea was a strong national economy, achieved by imperialism and interventionism. They envisioned Corporations and Unions attached to the Government (conflicts of interests made legitimate).

Strictly talking, almost no one can live up to ideal right wing economics (little to no regulation, protecting negative liberties but not positive, etc.). As I said, Free Markets are an abstraction (that IS very useful on its own, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition for example), and eventually no matter what kind of person you are you'll end regulating to compensate for the real world (except maybe Anarcho capitalists).

I'd prefer to talk about fair markets and optimal regulation, but that's based mostly on my notions of Control Systems and Feedback Theory (regulations are feedback loops, they can change the economic system output and make it more stable/unstable, it all comes to which regulations are you using).

Then again, I understand very well how regulations can screw up everything, so I give credit to the idea of reigning government power when it applies. After all, a lot of problems in this world are product of the collusion between governments and corporations. I just disagree that everything comes to less government. It's possible to have big government and small government in the wrong places, simultaneously. Also, I believe than protecting positive liberties is needed to ensure negative liberties. It's a problem of system stability. People without some guarantees about positive liberties (not necessarily via welfare, although I support things like UHC and maybe UBI) will end supporting authoritarian regimes (see the rise of far right movements in Europe and US).

PS: I understand you *blushes like a high school girl*

Apologies for top posting - no ability to scroll down in replies atm:

The definition of Fascism on Wiki is absolutely worthless, inaccurate and misleading historical revisionism. This is exactly why most universities do not allow citations from wikipedia as an authoritative source in papers.
When most of the world talks about something being "fascist" they aren't referring to Mussolini's blackshirts. They are talking about the utter ruthlessness and disregard for anything but the official party line that the Nazis had. Wiki stating that Nazism isn't fascism, is like saying Leninism, Stalinism or Maoism isn't communism. Nazism and the horrors they promulgated exemplifies why fascism vanished from the world as a viable.political.ideaology.

The Wiki definition of right wing vs left wing and the defining characteristics is laughable for neutrality.
Einstein was a fan of thought experiments for good reason. Let's try one out here:

The wiki claims a high correlation between some polls questioning people's viewpoints (90% in Canada and 44% in one section of the US) and how they self identify. Yet the overall definition of right wing by Wiki is intentional stratification of society by wealth amd trying to keep.others poor. If you asked 100 right wingers how.many would say that there goal was to keep others poor? 44? 90? That's like saying 44% or 90% of left wingers goal is to keep everyone on welfare so the government own them.
It is balderdash. Since I read your post and put a few thoughts in order for my response, the wiki articles have been purged of much of the foolishness, although much still remains. The fleeting nature of Wiki is also why it is bad to rely on it for critical ibformation.

Note that people weren't comparing Trump to Mussolini, and then ask yourself if people were thinking about Italian facism when theyaligned Trump's statements with Facism.

I think not.

Now look at the Wiki entry for "Right Wing" politics and note what **Wiki's** definition has "evolved" to include . . .

Classic Liberals among that list. If someone doesn't understand what is wrong with that, then I have no desire at all to explain anything further to them.

Most conservative voters in the US support small business. Unfortunately for reality, many of the hands off policies that help small business potentially allow vast abuses by large corporations. Many conservatives despise corps, and don't trust them, just as many liberals despise congress and don't trust the government.

As for "there aren't many exceptions" I personally know about 1500 exceptions, and only a handful that fit the corporotists theory. Even those handful trust the company they work for, but mistrust others and think they should be reigned in. There is a higher percentage of corporatism among the 2000 or so liberals I personaly know -so long as the particular corporations fit their perception of being a "good company".

Lastly, I was primarily looking at the social aspects. The left wing is far more apt to want to control what you are allowed to eat, what portion size it is, what ingredients it contains, how those ingredients are transported, how far those ingredients are transported, who represents the workforce making those ingredients, what the gender aand racial balance of those.owning the ingredient makers should be, how those ingredients are packaged and recycled, and lastly what names are socially acceptable for those ingredients.

Socially acceptable is the pogrom by which ideas and segments of the populace are excommunicated and extinguished by the left through rigid lockstep thinking. There is very little.dissension. Previously race or mental inferiority was a perfectly valid reason for left winged thinkers to deny.someone the right to vote, to be free, or even to reproduce. It was the left wing that was sterilizing tens of thousands in the USA, not the right. It was the progressive left wing that comiited women to.insane asylums because they were of.low.moral character, not thw right wing.

If a.picture is worth a thousand words, one good book is.worth ten thousand.wiki articles.

I am.done with this foolishness. (Not that you are foolish, but utilizing unreliable information to judge complex historical issues.) I will gift you one glimpse of the future:

No matter how left wing or liberal you are at the moment, there will.come a timw.im the future where you are considered by others to be a right wing extremist brute because you had the temerity of thinking for yourself instead.of following the official talkimg pointz.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The definition of fascism must adequate
Fascism is a controversial term (see how many definitions). The list is balanced, it has perspectives from the right and left, and actual fascists. It's pretty neutral.


If you have read the article,...


Reality is that while many conservatives talk about free markets they will end being corporatists.

There are not a lot of exceptions.


The whole excessive control of the economy is not a left or right thing, the only difference is rhetorical (the left will admit to control.

.The only thing you could say is left wing (in a bastardized sense) is the interventionism. Socially they are as right wing as possible.

Mussolini went from the socialists to the far right for very good reasons. Economy is not all that matters with the left and right.

For the sake's of

You are being disingenuous saying that fascists are a subset of the left when they started from fundamental disagreements with them because they were almost right wingers without any love for free markets. The left have enough monsters on their ranks (see almost any communist/statist regimen), fascists are not part of that group by almost any measure.

You should define right wing and left wing, like in this article, to avoid further disagreements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

You are narrowly looking at economic aspects and ignoring the social aspects, and that's it. I can't accept your interpretation of history if you don't fix that.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The definition of Fascism on Wiki is absolutely worthless, inaccurate and misleading historical revisionism. This is exactly why most universities do not allow citations from wikipedia as an authoritative source in papers.

While it shows citations from the right, the left and actual fascists. You'll need to show me better definitions then. Just saying "nah nah nah Wikipedia is a shit source" is not going to make true what you said. I find it balanced because it has many views from differing sources, and there are not overt biases. If George Orwell and Mussolini are not good enough point of views for you...

Wikipedia is useful as a secondary source, but not as a replacement for research, that's the reason you can't cite them directly while doing things like papers.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

When most of the world talks about something being "fascist" they aren't referring to Mussolini's blackshirts. They are talking about the utter ruthlessness and disregard for anything but the official party line that the Nazis had. Wiki stating that Nazism isn't fascism, is like saying Leninism, Stalinism or Maoism isn't communism. Nazism and the horrors they promulgated exemplifies why fascism vanished from the world as a viable.political.ideaology.

You should have learned that when people talk about fascists they refer to many, many things. You are objetively wrong about this. This thread is enough proof. Nazis are just a part of fascism, the most horrific one. Fascism goes beyond Nazism, and it's older than it.

The wiki never stated that nazis are not fascists. Try reading articles before bullshiting. It explicitly says otherwise.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The Wiki definition of right wing vs left wing and the defining characteristics is laughable for neutrality.

And that's the reason I asked you to come with your own definitions. Honestly, I don't know if it matters, because it seems you have a canned worldview. Left and right refers mostly to stability vs. change and how much energy should the government employ.

Given the world, being moderately to the left in social issues is a no brainer. You have a very cartoonish position of the left in social issues and social control (strawman: reducing to SJWs and communists).

The right is more likely to try to control things like with who you go to bed, what religion you have, what's your role in society, what substances you can consume and what's the right science. Like totalitarian muslim governments. All to the right.

Both sides are equally guilty of control, and you are disingenuous saying otherwise. Start being neutral, and less anecdotical. Conservatives in most countries just pay lip service to their ideals. I haven't seen them doing anything worthwhile. They started many dictatorships in my country when they losed ground.

There is a space for the right, but not in the form of conservatives.

I'd like you to live in my country and see hardcore, corrupt leftists for once. US is barely to the left except in fringes.

apologies for any errors in quoting - cleaned up as best I can.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"You should have learned that when people talk about fascists they refer to many, many things. You are objetively wrong about this."

I am correct in my assessment of usage. The general trend has been the same the last 35 years, with the term almost always being hyperbole when it does not reference WW2 facism/nazism. Most people are not very aware of the differnces between various types of facism just as they are not usually overly familiar with the differences between fermions and bosons. It just isn't something that is pertinent to them, any more than understanding the differences between the Sui and the Tang dynasties.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"The wiki never stated that nazis are not fascists. Try reading articles before bullshiting. It explicitly says otherwise."

When I recently read the article on Facism **stated** (note past tense) in the first or second paragraph that Nazism shouldn't be considered a type of facism and had a blue link to Nazism with the term. I was shocked to see such a flagrantly false claim which is why I remember it. That paragraph has been expunged through a stealth edit. You can keep your insults to yourself.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"Left and right refers mostly to stability vs. change and how much energy should the government employ."

If this is your personal generalism of left and right, we.can work from there. Both the left and facism have the government making drastic changes and both lead.to far less stability.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"Given the world, being moderately to the left in social issues is a no brainer. You have a very cartoonish position of the left in social issues and social control. "

Given all the substantial wrongs in the world.. such as torture, imprisonment, govt sanctioned murder, oppression, etc it makes sense to be against any authoritarian government with too.much
No cartoons, but rather recent legislation on all the things I mentioned as an example.
The behavioral controls are slowly being taught in schools relying on race baiting to generate a sense of outrage that causes the listener to overlook fundamental flaws in logic and history. The reigning in of freedom of speech is the first step down a very dark path. Ask any dissident in China how important freedom of speech is.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"The right is more likely to try to control things like with who you go to bed, what religion you have, what's your role in society, what substances you can consume and what's the right science. Like totalitarian muslim governments. All to the right.

Both sides are equally guilty of control, and you are disingenuous saying otherwise. [/quote]

They are not remotely the same, and most of the ones "from the right" were put into place long ago when society's standards were different. By comparison, the left wing control fetish is not only recent, but growing more burdensome every year. Given enough leeway and school enforced brainwashing, and fascism will return again with new and improved scientific environmentalism to replace eugenics.

I will grant you that ISIS is extremely conservative, and they are a perfect exampled of what happens when any ideology gains unlimited power. ISIS and Boko Haram's combined death toll is still under a hundred thousand, compared to the hundred million plus killed by the leftists Stalin, Lenin and Hitler (I would include Pol Pot, but although he started out as a communist, I don't know if he adhered to that model after taking control after that).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Start being neutral, and less anecdotical.

We aren't disputing facts with any real quantifiable or qualitative data that can be verified. It isn't as if 35%+ control of industry by government makes a company socialist, while 34% and under make it capitalist. Most governmental models are polluted by cross breeding and incestuous back room deals where power and money speak far louder than any ideology.

I haven't looked at the Wiki in the last few minutes, so what I am about to refer to may have changed...

The primary and secondary sources cited by Wiki for fascism show an interesting chronological gap. Prewar references are plentiful, and then the next sources are almost all late 60s or beyond. With WW2 just ended, and the Allies victorious, there should be a large body of material referencing fascism from 1950 - 1960. The memories and details from such a period would be far clearer than later ones.

Insert opposing group X here

"

NeroNoah wrote:

in most countries just pay lip service to their ideals.

All groups of one side say that about the other. Nothing new under the sun here.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

They started many dictatorships in my country when they losed ground.

I'd like you to live in my country and see hardcore, corrupt leftists for once. US is barely to the left except in fringes.

If you have some suggested books/readings/journals etc for such (starting dictatorships in your country and your country's hardcore leftists) I would be happy to add them to the reading list.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I am correct in my assessment of usage. The general trend has been the same the last 35 years, with the term almost always being hyperbole when it does not reference WW2 facism/nazism. Most people are not very aware of the differnces between various types of facism just as they are not usually overly familiar with the differences between fermions and bosons. It just isn't something that is pertinent to them, any more than understanding the differences between the Sui and the Tang dynasties.

Whatever. Fascism has become meaningless anyway. No one can agree about what it means, you and me included. Your assessment is as good as mine.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

When I recently read the article on Facism **stated** (note past tense) in the first or second paragraph that Nazism shouldn't be considered a type of facism and had a blue link to Nazism with the term. I was shocked to see such a flagrantly false claim which is why I remember it. That paragraph has been expunged through a stealth edit. You can keep your insults to yourself.

Articles are edited constantly. That edit could have existed for a few days easily. You should have revised the article. That edit is probably vandalism or someone with an agenda. Nothing suprising.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If this is your personal generalism of left and right, we.can work from there. Both the left and facism have the government making drastic changes and both lead.to far less stability.

Except in some parts of Europe (like Norway or Denmark), where life standards are superior and they even more bussiness friendly that the places like US. Again, it all comes to proper regulations. Right wing tends to underregulate and left tends to overregulate. There is an optimal point.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

They are not remotely the same, and most of the ones "from the right" were put into place long ago when society's standards were different. By comparison, the left wing control fetish is not only recent, but growing more burdensome every year. Given enough leeway and school enforced brainwashing, and fascism will return again with new and improved scientific environmentalism to replace eugenics.

Stop trying to whitewash the right. The left control fetish is nothing new (see Reign of Terror). It's out of control change. The right hasn't changed a lot in a good while, most rightwing governments are social conservative.

Also, as I said to Disrupted, you are overestimating that facet of the left (at least in US). People said the same about Hippies before.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

We aren't disputing facts with any real quantifiable or qualitative data that can be verified. It isn't as if 35%+ control of industry by government makes a company socialist, while 34% and under make it capitalist. Most governmental models are polluted by cross breeding and incestuous back room deals where power and money speak far louder than any ideology.

You talked about 1500 conservatives. Fairly pointless when they elect Republicans, and we can agree they are bullshit. The agregate effect of conservative influence is measurable, and it's not good. Show me a place where the Conservatives have lived up to their promises.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The primary and secondary sources cited by Wiki for fascism show an interesting chronological gap. Prewar references are plentiful, and then the next sources are almost all late 60s or beyond. With WW2 just ended, and the Allies victorious, there should be a large body of material referencing fascism from 1950 - 1960. The memories and details from such a period would be far clearer than later ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Post-World-War_II_.281945.E2.80.93present.29

(I'm argentinian, so I know Peron)

There is no interesting jump. A lot of fascists groups are covered. Maybe there are more that you think are interesting, but in a world wide sense is accurate. And there is another article linked that explains things better and with more sources (neo fascism).

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If you have some suggested books/readings/journals etc for such (starting dictatorships in your country and your country's hardcore leftists) I would be happy to add them to the reading list.

No books in english. I say you should research Peron, the Military Junta and probably Kirchnerism (it's a fairly recent subject that one).

The TL;DR version would be: Peron started like a nerfed version of fascism, moved to the left, and then moved to the right to fight communism. Then the militars got pissed off, and put an ultraconservative government (think something like the Tea Party). Then we returned to democracy, a failed government, a neoliberal that tried to introduce free markets, then the Argentinian Great Depression (funny how deregulation precedes this kind of shit), then to the left, then hardcore leftists (Cristina Kirchner). We are swinging to the right again.

A better example of actually hardcore leftists is Venezuela (Chavismo is similar to Peronism).